|
Jase,
Interesting points...but they have skirted a couple of issues I still have
I still do not agree image processing (IP) is the be all and end all...even for deep sky....that is not say I am right, it's just my point of view/experience.
I steadfastly hold to "GIGO" i.e. garbage in, garbage out. No amount of IP can save tragic data.
A competent deep-sky astrophotographer's skills are many and varied: Nailing Polar alignment, tuning the mount, correctly programming the PEC to avoid seeing noise, collimating the optics, determining the best camera back focus position, determining optimum focus and keeping it there, making sure the mechanics of the system are robust enough for the required exposure etc. and this is before the exposure has even started.
As remote telescope software gets better, a pay per view imaging session doesn't require the end user to do or know about any of the above.
It can be as simple as "slew to NGC5128" "take 10x 20 minute subs"
"download" ...hence we are back to proposition that it ends up being an image processing contest.
To totally even the field, then perhaps contestants will have to use a common raw data set....." 'ere you go lads...go process this" That would be nuts.
I do not envy the CWAS committee's deliberations on how to keep everybody happy, or at least not feel dis-advantaged, but I do know they are aware of the many issues new technology throws up, and try their best to adapt them into their contest rules.
That said, the calibre of winning and honorable mention images was at an all time high.
Once again well done to Martin, yourself and the many others who also did very well, and also those who had the courage to enter.
2009 will be here in the blink of an eye!
|